Central Information Commission
Dr. Aroop Jyoti Kalita vs Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports on 6 November, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194
Dr. Aroop Jyoti Kalita v. PIO, M/o Youth Affairs & Sports
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 31.03.2017, CPIO replied on 12.04.2017, FAO - Nil, Second appeal filed
on 08.08.2017, Hearing on 27.06.2018;
Proceedings on 09.04.2018: Appellant present, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr Vinod
Kumar from Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Mr. K.P. Sreejit. Directions for compliance and
Show-cause issued.
Proceedings on 28.05.2018: Appellant present from NIC Kamrup, Public Authority
absent.Directions for compliance.
Proceedings on 27.06.2018: Appellant present from NIC Guwahati, Public Authority represented
by CPIO Mr.Vinod Kumar, Mr. Ashwani Kumar and Mr. K.P. Sreejit at CIC;
Date of Decision - 06.11.2018: Disposed of with directions.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant appears to be a genuine sports person and interested in promotion of athletes. He is challenging the practice of public authority in corresponding with a de-recognized Sports Association/Federation and authorizing it to select sports teams for various events and competitions. He complains that because of this wrongful action of public authority, the genuine young person's trained in other sports associations are rejected and only those selected by derecognized federation are being promoted. He says it is a straight case of encouraging corruption and denial of rights of several young sportspersons.
2. The appellant sought the details of (i) established rules, if any, followed by Ministry of Sports which make it mandatory that any sportsman/athlete associated with any sports discipline in India has to be associated with Sports Association/Federation (ii) rules stating that if a sportsman is not associated with any Sports Federation cannot be eligible to participate in any Team Selection/Coaching Camp conducted by Ministry of Sports to any of its affiliated organisations (iii) details of rules which allow Ministry of Sports to select teams CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 1 to represent India in international events without any advertisement (iv) powers vested in officials of Ministry of Sports which allow them to select teams to participate in India sponsored selection camps without any open advertisement.
Mr. Parveen Suri, Deputy Director forwarded the RTI application to the Project Officer and CPIO of Sports Authority of India on 12.04.2017. Mr. A.K. Patro, Under Secretary replied on 03.10.2016 that TFI was initially granted recognition on 12.09.1988 and since 2015 TFI was not granted annual recognition as it did not furnish its renewed registration certificate.
3. The Commission's order dated 09.04.2018:
2. The appellant stated that he addressed his RTI application to the Ministry of Youth Affairs as the information sought was related to policy making. The RTI application was forwarded to Sports Authority of India (SAI) but the application was returned back by Mr. P.C. Makholia, the Project Officer, SAIto the Ministry.
3. Mr. Vinod Kumar, CPIO, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports submitted that the details about rules was not available with them and likewise response was given form the Sports Authority of India. The Co-ordinating Officer stated that despite sending several reminder letters to Mr. Ashwini, Projects Officer, there was no response from the Sports Authority of India.
4. The Commission finds that both Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports; and Sports Authority of India have conveniently dodged the RTI application for one year kicking out RTI application into each other's courts like a football. The applicant has sought the copy of rules prescribing the conditions where a sportsman can participate in events organised by association affiliated to any Sports Federation. The Federation must have copy of such rules because it pertains to them also. Instead of sharing a copy, the SAI has unnecessarily continued the time consuming process of correspondence with the Ministry.The Ministry is also equally responsibility for denying this simple information.
5. Mr. K.P. Sreejit, representing the Sports Authority stated that since they only implement the rules of the Ministry and do not deal with policy-making, the information was not available with them. It is most unlikely that the SAI can implement the rules of the Ministry without having copy of such rules. Assuming, the rules sought were not available with Mr. Ashwini, Projects Officer, Mr. K.P. Sreejit, present CPIO or Mr. P.C. Makholia, CPIO who returned back the RTI application to the Ministry, the CPIO had sufficient scope and time to collect the copy of rules from the Ministry and furnish the same to the appellant.
6. In fact, the rules sought by the appellant are required to be uploaded on the official website of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports as per section 4 (1)
(b) of RTI Act. The CPIOs of two public authorities were negligent towards the provisions of RTI Act and such inaction on their part attracts liability under section 20 of RTI Act.
7. The Commission directs Mr Vinod Kumar and K.P. Sreejit to provide complete information to the appellant, within ten days from date of receipt of this order.
8. The Commission directs Mr. Aswini, Projects Officer and CPIO, SAI; Mr. P.C. Makholia, CPIO, SAI; Mr. K.P. Sreejit, CPIO, SAI and Mr. Vinod Kumar, CPIO, CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 2 Ministry of Youth Affairs, to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the information sought.
9. The CPIOs are directed to send their explanations, before 28.05.2018 and the matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on the aforesaid date.
4. The Commission's order dated 30.05.2018:
4. Mr. Vinod Kumar, CPIO, MOYAS, stated that the RTI Application dated 31.03.2017 did not concern his office.The desired information was to be furnished bythe other CPIO in the Ministry, namely Shri Ashok Kumar Patro, UnderSecretary who is concerned with the subject matter. The RTI application was transferredto Sports Authority of India (SAI), simply because its name was referred.
5. TheSAIreturned the RTI application to the Ministry as SAI was not concerned with and Ministry alone has the desired information. Then why SAI took more than 11 months to return? Only after CIC hearing on 09.04.18, the information has been dispatched to the applicant collecting from CPIO of Ministry Mr. A.K. Patro.
6. The appellant claimed that the response of Ministry and SAI was not relevant to what he sought. He stated that though Taekwondo Federation of India (TFI) had been de-recognised in 2015 and did not have any authority to conduct sports championship events, it was actively selecting the teams for competitions and rejecting genuine candidates. He questioned how the sports Ministry could correspond with a de-recognized federation? He requested the Commission to the direct the CPIO for disclosure of those empowering provisionsenabling the Dept. of Sports, and MYA&S Government of India, todeal with derecognized federation completely contrary to the provisions of thepublished NSDC 2011. He complained that such policy documents were not kept in public domain till date.
7. On perusal of records and submissions of both parties, the Commission finds that the appellant was not given information as sought, and directs the respondents- Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sportsto explain why they are corresponding with and authorizing a de-recognized federation to select the teams etc, what is their course of alternative action in case a federation is derecognized like this.
7. There is no representation from offices of Sports Authority of India and Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports in today's proceedings. The Commission directs the public authority to explain why it should not be directed to pay compensation to the appellant for harassing him without information. The Commission gives a final opportunity to Mr. Aswini, Projects Officer and CPIO, SAI; Mr. P. C. Makholia, CPIO, SAI; Mr. K. P. Sreejit, CPIO, SAI and Mr. Vinod Kumar, CPIO, Ministry of Youth Affairs to submit their explanation in response to the show-cause notice issued by this Commission on 09.04.2018 and for compliance of the directions of the CIC. The matter is posted for penalty proceedings and compliance on 27.06.2018.
Decision :
5. The CPIO replied to the show cause notice on 25.05.2018 and stated that thesubject matter originally pertained to the Ministry of youth Affairs &Sports,Govt. of India (Department of Sports). However, the copy of the RTI CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 3 applicationwas sent by the Ministry of Sports Authority of India for providing necessary information. The officer also submitted that he was not the CPIO for this matter. Further, it was noticed that the matter pertained to the Ministry of Sports, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports Sh. Vinod Kumar has already replied to the RTI on 09.04.2018 within due period of 10 days of the order with a copy to the concerned CPIO and the second component of the Order was served upon Sh. Ashwani, Project Officer/CPIO, SAI, Sh. Vinod Kumar, CPIO, MYAS, etc. to show-cause that why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing information sought the explanation have been sought from them.
6. Shri Vinod Kumar, CPIO & Under Secretary to Government of India in his written submission dated 12.04.2018, explained as under:
"i) The RTI Application dated 31.03.2017 submitted by Dr. Aroop Jyoti Kalita in fact did not relate to me. In fact, the desired information was to be furnished by the other CPIO in the Ministry, namely Shri Ashok Kumar Patro, Under Secretary who is concerned with the subject matter. The RTI application was thus inadvertently forwarded to the undersigned.
ii) As there was mentioned about Sports Authority of India (SAI) too in the RTI Application, the same was thus forwarded to Sports Authority of India by the undersigned for furnishing the information direct to the applicant, under intimation to this Department.
iii) However, strange enough that SAI returned the RTI Application to the Ministry after about an year stating that the desired information is available with the Ministry and SAI is not concerned with it. In case this was so, SAI should have returned the RTI Application immediately after its receipt and not after about an year.
iv) After hearing in the case on 9th April, 2018, the information has been dispatched to the applicant on the same day after collecting the information from concerned CPIO in the Ministry i.e. Shri Ashok Kumar Patro, Under Secretary in the Ministry.
Hence, the orders of Hon'ble Central Information Commission to provide the information within 10 days to the applicant have been obeyed.
Sit I wish to submit further that there was no deliberate attempt on my part for not furnishing the information timely to the applicant and the delay has taken place due to communication gap which I sincerely regret. I also request for inadvertent lapse on my part for not transferring the application to the concerned CPIO in the Ministry. RTI cell should have marked the RTI application to the concerned CPIO, which was Shri A.K.Patro. But, inadvertently the RTI Application was transferred by me to SAI.
CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 4 I, therefore, request that my above submission may please be accepted and proposed imposition of penalty in my case may please be waived off. I assure the Hon'ble Commission that I shall be more careful about RTI applications in future."
7. Shri P.C Makholia, Project Office CPIO Coordinator (TEAMS) in his written submissions dated 25.05.2018, explained as under:
"With all humility, in compliance of your order dated 09.04.2018 on RTI Appeal of Sh. Aroop Jyoti Kalita, registered in your kind consideration:-
a) The subject matter originally pertained to the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Govt. of India (Department of Sports). However, the copy of the RTI application was sent by the Ministry of Sports Authority of India for providing necessary information vide ref. No. 11011/3/2017-SP-IV dated 05.04.2017. From the complainant's side it is stated that, he had filed first Appeal on 09.06.2017.
The above two references are not in my knowledge, since I was not the CPIO of SAI for matter. A copy of the note dated 28.03.2018 of Ms. Meena Bora, Regional Director (TEAMS) SAI is enclosed for your kind perusal in which your good self will see that, undersigned Mr. P.C. Makholia as CPIO of TEAMS Division, SAI coordinator () was not official tour to Australia and, the Mr K.P. Sreejith was deputed to be present before the CIC on 09.04.2018 at 10.45 AM in my absence. He has have complied with the said order.
b) As the matter pertained to the Ministry of Sports, the Under Secretary, MYAS (Sh. Vinod Kumar) vide letter No. 11011/1/2018-Sports-V dated:
09.04.2018 has already provided reply to the RTI applicant Sh. Aroop Jyoti Kalita within due period of 10 days of your order dated 09.04.2018, with a copy to the concerned CPIO of TEAMS Division, SAI Hence, the first component of the Order dated 09.04.2018 passed by your good self has been complied with.
c) The second component of the Order Dt. 09.04.2018 passed by your good self and served upon Sh. Ashwani, Project officer CPIO, SAI, Sh. Vinod Kumar, CPIO, MYAS, Mr. K.P. Sreejith & Sh. P.C. Makholia, CPIO, SAI to Show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of us for not furnishing the information sought. The explanations have been sought from each of us before 28.05.2018, the date on which the matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings.
I pray before your good self that, I may kindly be relieved of the proposed penalty and further proceding in this case, in view of the reasons furnished by me in the aforesaid para (b) wherein your good self kindly see that, I was not the CPIO to provide the reply to the RTI applicant."
8. The appellant in his online written submissions dated 21.03.2018, explained as under:
"With due respect, please find herewith our written submissions in connection with the Appeal/Complaint listed for hearing on 09.04.2018 pertaining to File No.CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194.
SUBMISSIONS
CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 5
I. The National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (hereinafter NSDC
2011 for brevity) available at
https://yas.nic.in/sites/default/files/File918.compressed.pdf was notified by Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports (MYA&S), Government of India on 31.01.2011. The relevant provisions of the NSDC 2011 pertaining to the Appeal/Complaint are being quoted below:-
1. Statement of Purpose:
1.1 Sport development is a national priority, as it promotes active lifestyle, child and youth development, social inclusiveness, employment opportunities, peace and development, and above all a sense of belongingness and national pride. While as state subject, sports development comes within the purview of the States up to the state level;
at the national and international level, (including meeting international treaty obligations), it falls within the realm and remit of the Union Government under its residuary powers and within the ambit of Entries 10 and 13 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
1.2 At the national policy level, sport is at par with public education and public health, and like them sport is a public good and sport development is a public function. It is for this reason that even though national sports bodies are autonomous in nature both, the Supreme Court of India and several High Courts have, in various judgments, maintained that although national sports bodies are not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, they come within the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution of India because they perform state-like functions such as the selection of national teams and representing the country in international sports events and forums.
1.3 Globally, countries across the world have enacted laws or enunciated guidelines for the regulation of sports in public interest and in national interest. The need to regulate sports arises out of several considerations such as the need to prevent racism in sports, eradicate doping in sports, prevent age fraud in sports, protect athletes' rights, prevent child abuse and sexual harassment in sports, protect gender equality in sports, prevent betting and gambling in sports, ban dangerous sports, promote professional management and managerial and financial accountability in sports, address anti-trust and competition policy issues related to sports, regulate sports broadcasting rights, regulate the price and entry to sports events, etc. 1.4 Government of India also has been, from time to time, taking various steps and initiatives to promote good governance practices in the management of sports at the national level in pursuance of successive National Sports Policies. These policies are based on the Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of Olympic and Sports movement and do not, in any manner, contradict or interfere with the autonomy of the national sports bodies in discharging their functions and duties in accordance with the International Olympic Committee Charter.
1.5 Accordingly, after the notification of the 2001 National Sports Policy the Government notified revised Guidelines for Assistance to National CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 6 Sports Federations (NSFs) in August 2001 and issued subsequent guidelines from time to time, which are legally binding on the National Olympic Committee (NOC), i.e., the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), and the National Sports Federations (NSFs) if they are desirous of regulating and controlling sports in India, or using the name of India or representing India within or outside India, or availing themselves of various benefits and concessions, including financial benefits such as customs duty exemption or income tax exemption that are available to NSFs, including the NOC. Although these bodies may be registered in different states under the Societies Registration Act or the Companies Act, their authority to function as the NOC or NSF will be dependent on compliance with the government guidelines.
1.6 In the recent past Government has taken various steps to further improve the management of NSFs and sports in the country such as notification of the Anti-Doping Code; introduction of annual recognition of NSFs to ensure transparency and accountability of NSFs; enforcement of age and tenure limit in respect of office bearers of NSFs, including the Indian Olympic Association; bringing NSFs under the purview of Right to Information Act; measures to ensure free, fair and transparent elections by the NSFs; and measures to combat age fraud in sports; and guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment of women in sports.
1.7 The various orders/circulars issued by the Government from time to time are amalgamated under this National Sports Development Code of India, 2011.
3. Recent Developments 3.1 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in Civil Writ Petition No. 7868 of 2005, in the matter of Indian Hockey Federation, while disposing off the matter vide Order dated 02.03.2010, categorically observed that the Government guidelines governing the NSFs are valid, binding and enforceable; and the tenure clause is not in violation of the International Olympic Charter. The Hon'ble Court also observed that the Government of India is fully competent to make regulations on NSFs and IOA. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court further cited entry 10 and 13 of List I (Union List) which read as under:-
Entry 10: Foreign affairs, all matters which bring the Union into relation with any foreign country.
Entry 13: Participation in international conferences, associations and other bodies and implementing of decisions made thereat.
Based on the above, the Hon'ble Court observed that while an NSF has autonomy in the actual conduct of sports, Government recognition is necessary to represent the country. It further observed that international sporting events are an essential part of diplomatic relations of the nations, and several considerations like security concerns of players, apartheid, and perceived human rights violations have guided nations in decisions to participate or not to participate in sporting events in different countries. Political and diplomatic clearances are, therefore, required by the Indian CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 7 teams before participation in the international tournaments and forums. The Court pointed out that no State Government has the competence or the jurisdiction to undertake such exercise, which the sole prerogative of the Union Government.
3.2 In another Public Interest Litigation No. 195/2010 in the matter of Rahul Mehra Vs. UoI and Others, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court took a serious view on the mismanagement of the Sports Sector in the country and expressed deep concern at the inaction on the part of the Government in implementing and enforcing its own guidelines, particularly those relating to age and tenure.
3.3 During the XIII Olympic Congress held at Copenhagen in 2009, it was resolved that each National Olympic Committee is required to be fully compliant with the laws of the land. Since the High Court of Delhi, while hearing the matter of government guidelines, including those on age and tenure limit, has refused to accept the prayer of National Sports Federations (NSFs), including IOA, to stay the operation of the said guidelines, they automatically become legally enforceable and the NSFs, including IOA are legally bound by it. Further, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has informed the Government that the IOA is in the process of amending its constitution by adopting the principles of good governance and ensuring voting majority of NSFs to become compliant with the IOC Charter. IOA has also indicated that they are in the process of amending their Constitution in line with the IOC suggestions.
3.4 The gist of important new initiatives taken by the Government is indicated hereunder. These have been suitably incorporated in the subsequent paragraphs of Guidelines by replacing the existing provisions and/or adding the new provisions. The new provisions supersede the earlier provisions in the 2001 Guidelines.
3.5 Gist of new initiatives taken by Government in the recent past:
• Restoring the limits on duration of tenure of office bearers of Indian Olympic Association and all recognized National Sports Federations. • Guidelines for Good governance in the context of Basic Universal Principle of Good Governance of Olympic and Sports Movement. • Annual recognition of National Sports Federations.
• Measures to combat fraud in age of players.
• Prevention of sexual harassment of women in sports, etc.
• Notifying IOA and NSFs as Public Authority under Right to Information
Act.
• Drawal of advance calendar of sporting events both national and
international.
• National Anti-Doping Rules notified vide gazette notification no 21-
4/2008-ID dated 5th February, 2010
• Guidelines for efficient management of Coaching Camps, Selection of
Coaches, Selection of Athletes, etc.
• Representation of Indian Nationals only, in National Teams.
3.6 The National Sports Federations who have the recognition including the annual recognition of Government of India in Ministry Youth Affairs and Sports, enjoy various facilities/concessions provided by the CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 8 Government of India. However, failure to comply with the Government Guidelines issued from time to time could result in one or more of the following consequences for the NSF concerned:-
1) Shall not be able to select the national teams and represent India in any international event or international forum (Reference: entry 10 and 13 of Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and observation of Hon'ble High Court in the case referred to above)
2) Shall not be allowed to use the word -"India" in its name since inclusion of the word "India" suggests the patronage of Government of India. (Reference: The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 which prohibits the use of India in the name of any entity without prior approval of the Government, as it may suggest or be construed to suggest the patronage of the Government).
3) Shall lost its All India character and may not be able to regulate and control the concerned sports discipline in the country. (Reference:
Most of the NSFs are registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under a State Societies Registration Act which are operative in a particular State and as such without the recognition of Central Government, the NSF cannot operate beyond the boundaries of the State concerned where it is registered).
4) Shall not be able to avail itself of Custom Duty Exemption for import of sports goods, sports equipment, sports requisites as an NSF/Apex Body. (Reference: Department of Revenue's Notification No.5/2010-Customs dated 19.10.2010 read with Notification No.146/94-
Customs dated 13.07.1994 allows the custom duty exemption to NSF under a certificate issued by SAI; further Notification No.21/2002- Customs provides custom duty exemption for import of Requisites for games and sports for Apex body in relation to the concerned game or sport).
5) Shall not be able to avail itself of Income Tax exemptions under relevant provisions of the Act (e.g. as per the Section 80(G) (2)(viii) (c) any sum paid by the assesses, being a company, in the previous year as donations to the Indian Olympic Association or to any other association or institutions established in India, as the Central Government may, having regard to the prescribed guidelines, by notification in the official gazette specify in this behalf for (i) the development of infrastructure for sports and games; (ii) the sponsorship of sports and games; is exempted from tax).
6) Shall not be able to avail itself of the special dispensation available to NSFs to remit funds towards sponsorship, prize money for activities abroad (Reference: FEMA (Current Transaction) Rules 2000 - Schedule II section 9)
7) Participation in national and international events organised by NSFs that are not recognised by Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports shall not be considered for appointment to government jobs under sports quota. (Ref: DOPT's orders) CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 9
8) The sportspersons of the unrecognised NSFs may not be able to get admissions under sports quota in schools and colleges.
9) The sportspersons participating in national championships organised by NSFs not recognised by Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports shall not be entitled for railway concessions granted for this purpose.
6. Role and responsibility of the MYAS, National Sports Federation and the SAI.
6.1 The roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved in implementation of the guidelines are as follows:
(a) Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
(i) To determine the eligibility conditions for recognition of NSFs.
(ii) To determine quantum and scale of assistance to NSFs and others
(iii) To lay down conditionalities which NSFs and others will have to fulfil if they wish to avail themselves of Government support.
(iv) To provide assistance to NSF against agreed long term development programme.
(b) National Sports Federations NSFs are fully responsible and accountable for the overall management, direction, control, regulation, promotion, development and sponsorship of the discipline for which they are recognized by the concerned International Federation. They are expected to discharge these responsibilities in consonance with the principles laid down in the Olympic Charter or in the charter of the Indian Olympic Association or the relevant International Federation, as the case may be while being compliant with Government guidelines applicable to NSFs.
(c) Sports Authority of India Will provide the necessary support to NSF for the identification, training and coaching of sportspersons, including provision of infrastructure, equipment and such other assistance as may be agreed to under the LTDPs. Further SAI will also be responsible to release funds to NSFs against proposals approved by the Government. Released of funds to IOA shall, however continue to be made by the Ministry.
II. A few examples of actions of the Department of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India & Sports Authority of India (SAI) [The Sports Authority of India (SAI), a successor organization of the IXth Asian Games held in New Delhi in 1982, was set up as a Society registered of Societies Act, 1860 in pursuance of the Resolution No. 1-1/83/SAI dated 25th January 1984 of the Department of Sports, Govt. of India with objective of CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 10 promotion of Sports and games as detailed in the Resolution...... as mentioned in http://sportsauthorityofindia.nic.in/index1.asp?ls_id=54] which are not in conformity with the stipulations as laid down in the NSDC 2011 or any notification by Dept. of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India incorporated in the NSDC 2011 is the reason the application under the RTI Act, 2005 (Vide No. MOYAS/R/2017/50126 dated 31.03.2017) was filed against which this hearing is being held:-
a) The Department of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India derecognized the National Federation associated with the sport of Taekwondo in India - Taekwondo Federation of India (TFI) vide their circular No. F.No.72-18/2009-SP-I dated 12.03.2015 and dated handed over all activities pertaining to Taekwondo to SAI. Till date there is no recognized NSF in the sport of Taekwondo in India.
b) Several applications filed under RTI Act, 2005 with SAI-HOand SAI-
Guwahati revealed that SAI did not take any steps officially as mandated pertaining to the sport of Taekwondo in India subsequently in consonance with the provisions of NSDC 2011. In fact most of the time applications seeking information filed under RTI Act, 2005 keep bouncing back & forth between Dept. of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India & SAI with no proper information forthcoming despite NSDC 2011 clearly identifying the domains and responsibilities of both of them.
c) The derecognized TFI went ahead with conducting National Championships, selecting teams to represent India in International events, etc. with full knowledge of SAI & Dept. of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India with complete disregard to the provisions of the NSDC 2011.
d) SAI unilaterally on proposals originating from the derecognized TFI went ahead to sanction funds with full knowledge of Dept. of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India to send teams abroad to represent 'India' by arbitrarily selecting teams without any proper advertisement. (Ref:
F.No.66(1)SAI/TD/TKD/F.E/2016-17 dated 27.10.2016 issued by SAI- Teams Division).
e) Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Government of India in a RTI reply denied giving any permission/clearance to any such team though mentioned in SAI letter No F.No.66(1)SAI/TD/TKD/F.E/2016-17 dated 27.10.2016.
f) In a reply to an application filed under RTI Act, 2005, SAI admitted communicating with 2(two) federations in the Sport of Taekwondo!. SAI even extended official support to activities of these derecognized NSFs. Whereas in an earlier RTI reply, it was clearly mentioned that the ministry (MYA&S) deals with only recognized National Sports Federations. And none of these 2 derecognised federations feature in the list of recognized NSFs issued by Dept. of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India on 03.01.2018.
g) Despite several letters / memorandums / petitions to Dept. of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India and Director General - SAI bringing all these anomalies to their notice, this went on unabated and is still continuing. (Reference No : CETA/DG-SAI/01/Tkd/2017 Dated :
12/01/2017, Reference No : AJGSP/DG-SAI/06-2017 Dated :
18/03/2017, Reference No : CETA/DG SAI & SMYA&S/09/Tkd/2017 Dated : 27/03/2017 & Reference : AJGSP/SS-MYA&S/12/2018 Dated :
15.01.2018)
CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 11
III. Therefore in the premises aforementioned, these actions of Dept. of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India and SAI which are in full knowledge of both as is evident from the RTI replies furnished against several applications filed under the RTI Act, 2005 clearly imply that all such actions have been carried out by both Dept. of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India and SAI under provisions which are not in public domain as they do not only go contrary to the provisions as mentioned in NSDC 2011 (which have been highlighted in Para - I above) but also the basic tenet of "Equality" enshrined in the Preamble of our Constitution as these actions have resulted in denial of the opportunity to participate in fair selections and represent the country to many deserving players all across the country.
IV. That, therefore the application under RTI Act, 2005 (MOYAS/R/2017/50126 dated 31.03.2017) against which this hearing is being held was filed for disclosure of those empowering provisions adopted by / vested upon the Dept. of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India (if any) by virtue of which they have been carrying out the actions as detailed in Para-II above which go completely contrary to the provisions of the published NSDC 2011 and which are not in public domain as on date.
V. That, therefore the Hon'ble Central Information Commission may kindly direct the concerned CPIO to disclose those empowering provisions adopted by / vested upon the Dept. of Sports, MYA&S, Government of India (if any), the relevant information about which was sought for in the application filed under RTI Act 2005 vide No. MOYAS/R/2017/50126 dated 31.03.2017 in connection with which this hearing is being held by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission."
9. In view of the above submissions of the appellant, the Commission recognizes this as serious policy deficiency and accordingly directs the respondent authority to consider the written submissions of the appellant as formal complaint and provide certified copies of complete information, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/604194 Page 12